Williams v. Finn
| Kelvin Lance Williams |
| Claude E. Finn |
| 2:2009cv01691 |
| June 18, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
33
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer on 8/18/11 Recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 be denied. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Within twenty-one days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Due to the appointment of Recalled Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer to the bench of the Eastern District, this action is REASSIGNED from Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Bommer for all further proceedings. The District Judge currently assigned to the case will remain unchanged. (Donati, J)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/24/2010 ORDERING 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are adopted in full; and 16 Motion to Dismiss is denied. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
24
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/9/10 recommending that 16 MOTION to DISMISS be denied. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/25/2010 ORDERING petitioner to file a supplemental opposition to the motion to dismiss w/in 21 days; respondent's reply due w/in 14 days of the supplemental opposition. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/31/09 DENYING 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/6/09 ORDERING that 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioners habeas petition within 60 days. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioners reply, if any, shall be filed within 30 days after service of the answer; Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the consent/reassignment form, together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus on Michael Patrick Farrell. (cc Michael Farrell)(Dillon, M)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Williams v. Finn | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Kelvin Lance Williams | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Claude E. Finn | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
